tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News February 3, 2012 1:00am-2:00am PST
[♪...] >> announcer: bank robbery certainly is a frightening crime. after all, bank robbers stole $43 million in one year. but identity thieves? try 37 billion! and guess how identity thieves are getting some of that money. by taking over our bank accounts. they may not even need your social security number anymore. all an identity thief may need are a couple of simple pieces of information, like your mother's maiden name or the city you were born in, and they could add their name onto your bank accounts in order to make your money their money.
you need help. [whoosh, clang] you need lifelock-- the only identity theft protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. lifelock is the proactive identity theft protection company, with an early warning alert system that is state of the art. when we detect any suspected breaches of your personal information within our network, we contact you right away, before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. no one can stop all identity theft-- that's why lifelock offers you peace of mind, and you get our million dollar total service guarantee. >> having your identity stolen feels like you've been totally violated. you go around looking over your shoulder. it's almost as if someone has broken into your home. >> announcer: don't spend another day without lifelock. call now. try lifelock's service risk-free for 60 days. lifelock is the only identity theft protection company that now monitors bank accounts for takeover fraud. no one provides more comprehensive identity theft protection than lifelock. if you're not convinced within
60 days, simply notify lifelock and you won't pay. and to keep your documents out of the wrong hands, we'll even add this personal shredder-- a $29 value-- absolutely free with your enrollment. don't wait another minute. call the number on your screen now, promo code: alerts. lifelock service guarantee cannot be offered to residents of new york.
>> bret: senators just moments ago overwhelmingly approved a bill banning insider trading by lawmakers and members of the executive branch. it now moves on to the house for debate next week. the obama administration is changing some rules regarding 401(k) retirement plans. some new regulations require
more transparency about fees charged to maintain those plans. others have to do with retiree options for withdrawing the money. now a fascinating story from maryland. it involves animal rights advocates reversing course to support the slaughter of horses. you heard that right. doug explains the reasons for the turn around. >> 70 horses confiscated from mid atlantic forms because of neglect. many near death before their rehabilitation at this rescue farm. their fate far better than the hundreds of thousands of horses slaughtered in the u.s. for human consumption abroad. under pressure from animal rights groups and many horse owner, the slaughter industry was effectivelynded in the u.s. in 2007 when congress stopped funding it for usda inspection of horse slaughter houses. it turned out to be a law of unintended consequences. >> what that meant was that they were crammed into small trucks,
that they were slipping and sliding in their own waste, crammed together with horses they tint know, biting and kicking and trucked 1,000 miles or nor to another country where they met the exact same fate. >> last november, president obama quietly signd into law an agriculture spending bill that restores the inspection process for domestic horse slaughter. a stop-gap measure that opens the door for u.s. slaughter of horses again. a move many animal rights activists reluctantly support. >> the fact that it's closer rather than have these travel these great distance social security at least a step in the right direction. >> after an onslaught of inquiries from concerned horse owner, the usda responded with a statement that read, quote, a number of federal state and local requirements and prohibitions remain in place. furthermore, there have been no requests to the department initiate the authorization process for any horse slaughter operation in the united states at this time. what is needed now, many agree, is broader legislation.
>> the solution is to pass the -- need to stop horse slaughter not only in the u.s., but stop the exports of live american horses to canada and mexico. >> that legislation, which enjoys bipartisan support, has been bottled up in committee while a divided congress wrestles over more pressing issues. implicating the passage of new legislation is the simple fact that slaughtering a horse for its meat puts money into the pocket of the horse owner. whereas humanely euthanizing the horse and disposing of its body costs a lot of money, upwards of $600 per horse. >> bret: doug live in maryland tonight. thank you. house republicans fire back against accusations they are stonewalling president obama's agenda. why jesse jackson thinks republicans are putting the president in physical
>> now fresh pickings from the political grapevine. reverend jesse jackson prompted by msnbc host martin bashir, has linked republican rhetoric with potential violence against president obama. jackson referred to arizona governor jan brewer's recent finger pointing and south carolina congressman joe wilson's you lied yell during a speech three years ago. jackson asserted the president is being demonized. >> we've seen what demonization can do when somebody feels you
must get the demon out of the way. and so i don't disassociate these name calling and labels from an ak 747 shooting in the house and hit a window. someone could have been shot and killed. these are very dangerous times and these tones, fit the climate. >> the obama administration is trying to portray the president as running against a do nothing congress in this election year. however, house speaker john boehner's office notes at least four new proposals from president obama after the state of the union address, to spur job growth and grow small business have already passed the house and await senate approval. president obama wants to expand many stock offering a limits. the house passed a measure that included that back in november. he wants to allow entrepreneurs to raise capital by selling securities through on-line social networks called crowd funding. the house did that in november as well. the president wants to extend
100% depreciation of capital assets. that was part of the house bill passed in december. and he wants to relieve the back log of immigration visas. that, too, was passed in late november. white house officials did not reply to a request for a comment about the bill by bill breakdown. finally, the ron paul campaign is putting its foot down with newt gingrich. it wants an apology and medical expenses for a paul supporter who says gingrich staffers deliberately stepped on his foot tuesday in florida. paul's camp says the man was wearing flip flops when the stomping occurred, resulting in a broken foot. we reached out to gingrich's camp, but have not heard back. now a story about the intersection of tough economic times and one of the nation's most emotional landmarks. senior correspondent rick heaven at all has the story from new york. >> the 9-11 memorial at ground zero has already attracted a million visitors since it opened last september. but the 9-11 museum is still
unfinished. mostly underground near the footprints of the twin towers, its completion could be delayed further now that republican senator tom coburn has blocked legislation that will provide 20 million a year in federal support for the next decade. >> every year i send a letter to every senator saying if you put a bill on the floor that's going to spend new money, then you need to put with that bill what you want to eliminate to pay for that. >> coburn says reducing the federal deficit requires tough choices, cutting spending on what he calls less vital priorities. so he says the museum will just have to come up with the cash on its own. new york democratic senator chuck schumer is fighting back. >> this is sacred ground not only to new yorkers, but americans and to have the memorial, the museum in as good a way as possible, not limited by lack of funding makes eminent sense. >> the dispute to do million federal dollars a year would pay a third of the museum's
estimated $60 million annual operating budget. coburn's critics point out washington's kennedy center for the performing arts get 22 million in federal support every year. the national holocaust museum gets 50 million. senator coburn has been nicknamed dr. no more regularly holding up money he says isn't a taxpayer priority. including temporarily halting aid to sick 9-11 first responders a couple years ago. coburn says this isn't about new york. the 9-11 museum was originally scheduled to open this fall on the 11th anniversary of the attacks. now not only has it been postponed, a spokeswoman won't say when the project might finally be finished. in new york, rick leventhal, fox news. >> bret: a secret new york police department document has revealed a recommendation that shiite muslims and their mosques be put under increased surveillance. the 2006 report from the department's intelligence division conflicts with pronouncements from the mayor and others that the nypd does
not consider religion in its policing. new york mayor michael bloomberg is promising to match up to a quarter million dollars in donations to planned parenthood to offset funds being cut by a breast cancer charity group. the susan g. komen for the cure foundation announced wednesday it's ending its association with planned parenthood. the pentagon chief says israel may attack iran soon. that's breaking news. that and other foreign policy development when is the fox all stars join me when we come back
columnist with the "washington post," this about israel possibly attacking iran. quote, panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that israel will strike iran in april, may or june before iran enters what israelis described as a zone of immunity. to commence building a nuclear bomb. that is raising a the lo of eyebrows here in washington and around the world really. let's bring in our panel, start there. steve hayes, senior writer for the weekly standard. charles krauthammer. charles, you wonder looking at reporting like that and i should point out that we've had conversations with senior u.s. officials who have concerns about israeli action that may be imminent. but when the defense secretary is talking even on background to someone who you know it's going to get out there, you wonder what the message is here to israel or to iran.
>> it is quite the -- the fact that it was released is puzzling. now, the substance is not. the fact that i think people haven't understood what the israeli clock was. it wasn't that the israelis would strike when they thought iran was in a position to break out and produce a weapon. it is earlier. it's a different clock. it's when the israelis would calculate that iran had so hardened its defenses and have put so much equipment inside let's say the facility under a mountain, such that israel or anybody would never be able to attack it and thus, iran would have a free ride. and that is the moment that the israelis believe is approaching. that's what the zone of immunity is, that all the material and equipment will be so hardened that nobody will be able to attack it. the question is why did panetta release this? was it a mistake? was it a slip? as you said, he made a release
yesterday about what we're going to do in afghanistan which looked as if it was a mistake. it was supposed to be announced in may. but if it's a deliberate leak, then why did he do this? is he warning iran to prepare its air defenses and shoot down israelis? he's quite specific about the month. is it a warning against israel, don't do this 'cause we're going to announce it, warn people about it in advance? is it a bluff against iran, you better think about this and come and negotiate? i'm not sure how to read it, but it is astonishing that he would give actual, specific dates of an ally attacking what it thinks is an existential threat. the israelis are worried that there will be a point soon at which there will be no time in the future at which can t could decide to attack and have success. when that moment approaches, israel, and any government israel, would attack 'cause it
cannot live with an iranian nuclear weapon. >> i think the israelis made it quite clear that this is their intention. i agree with charles, sort of the timing and the purpose of panetta giving us a time line and a calendar of when it could happen. it's really surprising. clearly the obama administration is engaged with the israelis right now about the extent of our role. there is planning underway certainly by the israelis. they've really made that -- they haven't been shy about it. but why he would say this, give us a time frame is very strange. i don't think that any american would be surprised by the news that this happened, but to say to the iranians perhaps, you have this amount of time, it's really strange. >> there is a story in the "new york times" magazine this weekend with some great detail about where the israelis are in their thinking about the iranian nuclear capacity and in that
story, they suggest that the israelis are ready to go and the third of three arguments that this author makes was the israelis believe they have the at that sit permission of the obama administration to do this, to go ahead and do this. i wonder, and this is total speculation, i don't have reporting to back this up -- i wonder if this isn't in part in response to that, that they're saying, if you thought you had permission, this is our way of telling you you absolutely do not have permission and we are putting these dates out there to basically thwart your efforts. >> so what -- >> bret: what is your thought on the extent of interaction, cooperation between u.s. officials and israeli officials and their thinking about intelligence and planning? >> i would assume that there is a fair amount of intelligence sharing as there has been in the past. if you look at the history of the relationship between the two states since the beginning of the obama administration, there is some real barriers there. there is real hurdles there. i'm not sure we've had the kind of frank discussions at the highest levels that we need to
have in advance of something like what we're discussing. >> charles? >> the israelis have shown in their history, the attack in 1981 against the reactor in iraq, the attack was in 2007 against the nuclear facility that syria had, that the israelis wiped out. they can not live with a nuclear weapon in the hands of an enemy and one that is the most aggressive of all, iran, which has said openly, its mission, sort of its religious obligation is to anilate the zionist entity of the rhyme against islam. so it isn't an idle threat. and the jews have a history of hearing -- 80 years ago, about annihilation and the world didn't believe it. so it's not going to tolerate it. the question is why was this released now? >> bret: what about this question, we often talk about how hard it would be for the u.s. to target the different facilities. many of them underground. we don't know exactly where all
these facilities are throughout iran, if it's hard for the u.s., it's hard for israel. you talk about a lot of dynamics, reaction, iranian reaction, world reaction. there's a lot happening here if it happens. >> israel is taking a huge risk. but you have to understand the mentality. in may '67, israel was surrounded by enemies. all alone and decided would attack the egyptian air force. it sent its entire air force to attack and succeeded in the sense we won the war. do you know how many airplanes israel left at home to defend itself? seven. in other words, if israel is surrounded and thinks it's against an exististential enemy -- they say it's like the preamble, the weeks before the '67 war when it was alone and surrounded. >> bret: we will continue to follow this very serious story
>> it's my honor, real honor and privilege to endorse mitt romney. mitt is tops. he's smart. he's sharp. he's not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country that we all love. so governor romney, go out and get em. you can do it. >> thank you. i'm so honored and please to do have his endorsement and i'm looking for the endorsement of the people of nevada.
[ cheers and applause ] >> bret: ahead of the nevada caucuses saturday, mitt romney with the endorsement of the donald. donald trump. some thought and some reported actually that newt gingrich was going to get trump's endorsement. gingrich had reaction to this today. >> i'm just watching in amazement. >> why is it amazing? >> because some people have this knack of gathering attention. >> talking about donald trump, perhaps? >> the donald is a force of his own. >> would you like to have that force on your side? >> oh, yeah. >> that didn't get an answer. we're back with the panel. a.b., what about this development in the world of politics? >> well, i don't know a lot of republicans who really think that the donald trump endorsement is important or helpful for mitt romney. i think it was helpful for mitt romney -- to stand next to donald trump to change the
subject from his comments electric yesterday, which are still news today about his lack of concern for the very poor. >> bret: which continues on in the full context that -- >> we all know the context, brett. >> bret: not all of us know the context. if you look at some channels. >> okay. he did talk about how if there was a problem with the safety net for the poor, he would fix it and we want on to talk about why his campaign is about trying to improve economic growth for the middle class and for -- however, there are republicans who are very upset about his comments, worried that he is an ad maker's dream, very frank the candidate -- fragile on the stump who is going to do this when he's up against barak obama. none of these gaffes have been about his flip flops. they're never about whether or not he supports gay rights all of a sudden or climate change or he's pro choice or anything. it's always about this sort of disconnect between his enormous
wealth and the working poor or others, very poor. he knows that donald trump endorsement doesn't really mean anything. he's going to win in nevada. it's not going to be a pivotal contest for him. he has a great lead there. he needs to change the subject from gingrich and trump and the very poor and get back to positive message about himself. >> bret: steve, he told hannity in an interview that will be on tonight at the p.m. -- 9:00 p.m. eastern, he's concerned about all citizens, but now and then you misspeak and you have to acknowledge that. he didn't intend to say it the way he did and he said this is part of the political process. back to trump, fox news poll earlier -- last month, i should say, more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by donald trump. more likely 10%. less likely, 27%. no difference, 62%. but some say that this kind of shored up some of the doubts
about the very conservative folks who like donald trump and what he says. you're shaking your head. >> no, i don't think that does it at all. the very conservative folks that people have toiled for decades in the conservative movement do not care a whip what donald trump says or talks about or thinks. they do not care. there are people who respect donald trump. i'm not one of them. i thought the most telling thing was the side shot of mitt and ann romney as they watched. when my kids are sick, i have to take them cough syrup and you give it to them in a vial and they take a shot. but before they do that, you see the expression on their face and it's like anticipating pain. that's what you saw with mitt and ann romney. i disagree with conservatives who suggested that mitt romney should have somehow rejected this endorsement and should have said no way, i don't want to be associated with donald trump. you can't do that. this is somebody who entertained publicly the idea of running as a third party candidate. you have an opportunity to get an endorsement. you take it, you make as short event as possible.
this was five minutes, and you move on. think think that's exactly what they're going to do. >> bret: charles? >> you're all wrong. i think it matters. even though as we saw in the poll and people say, well, the endorsement won't induce them to vote against the endorseee, i think it matters for this reason: newt had positioned himself as the insurgent of the outsider, the antiestablishment guy. then you had all these endorsements of people who were the anti-romneys who went ahead and who supported his narrative. cain, perry, and then with a quasi endorsement, sarah palin. so all -- for these people that had a rise and fall in the antiestablishment alternative are the ones who lined up and supported the newt idea of him as the insurgent. trump was one of those and he's the only one who stepped out of that story line and instead of endorsing newt, which would have been the natural continuation of that story line, switched over and supported romney.
it's not a huge event. but i think it does interrupt and disrupt that story line and i think in that sense, it matters. it also took all the attention off the gaffe that romney made yesterday. >> bret: one last thing, the gingrich campaign, while newt gingrich seemed to not care, the gingrich campaign put out a statement, including some quotes from trump about romney recently, told greta back in august, quote, i wasn't in love with the job he did in massachusetts. he wasn't popular. he was a one-term governor. he didn't have high approval ratings. so they're putting out some quotes, a.b. >> and donald trump's own staff was saying a few days ago, he might run on his own. he wasn't endorsing mitt -- he spent supporting mitt romney five days ago. that's why it just doesn't really carry that much weight. >> he was supporting newt gingrich as other as today. i think what happened is they had these negotiation down to the last minute and trump finally said, i'll pick you.
>> bret: some people on the ground said newt gingrich's camp was trying to put it out there saying maybe it would happen. who knows? you're shaking your head through the entire panel. >> charles is very, very mart and also very, very wrong. >> bret: okay. we're going to leave it there with no response. that's it for the panel. stay tuned to see some behind the scenes election video